(03-20-2018 04:43 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  Not allocated revenues/expenses are spread evenly over all the sports.

Most likely authorized institutional support that wasn't used.

Also FB expenses include scholarships which are an internal transfer of funds.

Budgets are set up to look balanced and bigger than what they actually are.

Sent from my SM-G950U using CSNbbs mobile app

If what you said were true then the examples I gave for Division I schools that do not play football, would only have budgets 20-25% smaller than EMU and similar G5 schools. However their budgets are approximately half, and all of them have much smaller sums for "not allocated by sport" than do schools with football.

I can show you 20 or 30 more examples that demonstrate a much higher cost for not allocated by sport expenses at football schools than non-football.

EMU's budget is typical of G5 around $32M. UC Riverside and Cal State Fullerton are typical among non-Football schools that play other sports at roughly the same level as EMU (arguably much higher in some sports). Their budgets are in the $18M dollar range. Both EMU in G5 and these two California schools are typical budgets, not outliers high or low cost. The difference is around 45% less for non-football, even carrying a similar number of scholarship athletes as EMU.

So why would funds not allocated to specific sports be so much higher at football schools? I think the answer is rather obvious. For one thing practice and training facilities are much more expensive - more rooms, larger locker spaces, more weight training facilities, more dietary specialists, more athletic support staff, higher insurance costs, and so on. There are no doubt other expenses and administrative staff dedicating significant chunks of time more to football than other sports, who might well be redundant without football.

The numbers do not lie. Football schools have budget almost double those without football.